As one who was born in the late forties, it was WWII with which I
identified as a young boy pretending to kill and be killed in the
adventurous soldier games of my happy and secure neighborhood.  Later on,
it was Vietnam that shattered those childhood fantasies.

I have great respect for those who heeded the call to duty after Pearl
Harbor and for those in charge who assumed the enormous weight of
responsibility for the war's decision-making.  But I also believe it would
be wrong to protect from critical scrutiny those historical events from
which new generations draw an influence. It does not do a disservice to the
sacrifice and patriotism of the men and women who fought and lived through
the war to now question the voracity of decisions regarding when and where
and whether to have used the atomic bomb, or to note its human
consequences.  I am sorry the generation before me had to face that
horrible moment in history and am proud of them for doing so, but I am less
concerned with protecting their belief systems than with telling the story
without a bias of historical self-righteousness.  We owe this to our
children who might someday face decisions of equal consequence.

Curators of historical exhibitions containing such social and moral
implications ought to approach their subjects without bias and, as Audrey
Davis suggests below, conduct research in that open frame of mind.
Critical objectivity may not be so readily available to individuals who
lived through WWII and whose lives became profoundly affected as a result.
For them, the war has a single interpretation because people they love died
during its battles. For them, to imagine otherwise might demean that memory
and render such sacrifices meaningless.  It is sad this is so, because
history does not have to be only celebratory in order to honor its fallen
heroes.  When museums succumb to social or fiscal pressures to bias their
presentations, as in the Enola Gay episode, they violate a trust that is
central to their reason for existing.

Stephen Nowlin
Director, Williamson Gallery
Art Center College of Design
Pasadena, CA

----------------------------------

Audrey B. Davis writes:

>Let's be reasonable, what sponsor wants to associate its name with
>anything, especially an exhibit that is critical of the sponsor or
>discusses the sponsor in a less than flattering light? As long as
>museums mounted exhibits that displayed positive stories and showed
>the progression from the past to the present with the present placed
>in the spotlight as the best with even greater hope for the future
>sponsors did not have to be concerned about the messages presented
>by exhibits. Sponsors could take credit for backing the present and
>the future and making everyone feel good about themselves after
>seeing the exhibit. It is no accident that the most heavily funded
>exhibits are art exhibits which present "beauty" and don't pretend to
>make social statements (at least in the labels). Exhibits have long
>thrived on presenting a neutral or even bland view of the objects they
>contain. The reputation of the Smithsonian was built on showcasing
>the nation's treasures, such as the Hope Diamond, George Washington's
>dentures (actually owned by Baltimore College of Dental Surgery of
>the University of Maryland Dental School), the first ladies gowns,
>spectacular natural history items like fossils, skeletons, etc. and
>of, course paintings, sculpture, etc. With these objects captions
>hardly mattered. Each is its own justification for being on exhibit.
>
>However when exhibits began to be organized around themes and
>historical questions which included making critical statements and
>questioning the behavior of past heroes and heroines, then public
>reaction naturally ensued. The WW II veterans could not stand by and
>see their triumph over Japan which they believed depended on dropping
>"the bomb" questioned and negated, especially during a special
>anniversary year. How should a curator have treated this topic? What
>would you have done? How do you tell a veteran that what he
>experienced and believed in was wrong? I am no supporter of war and
>feel very guilty that the U.S. dropped an atom bomb during my
>lifetime, but then I never had to make any decisions about the war,
>serve in it or take any blame or credit for it.
>
>Curators must learn to discuss with the public far more than they
>ever have. To develop meaningful exhibits and take critical stances
>far more dialogs with many groups of people need to take place well
>before an exhibit takes shape. The best exhibits grow out of
>interests of the society in which they are mounted and take much
>nurturing on the part of all concerned. The sponsor's needs and views
>are only part of a very complex equation.